GOP Wants to Change the Definition of the Term Scientific Theory
In their never ending quest to drag America back to the 11th Century, the GOP now wants to change what the words "hypothesis" and "theory" mean.
[quote]HB 291, the "Missouri Standard Science Act," redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a "hypothesis" is redefined as something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular." A scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy." And "destiny" is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it's "the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race."
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/14/2013|
That is not even close to what a hypothesis really is. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon which needs to be tested.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/13/2013|
[quote] something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular"
Is called "wrong."
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/13/2013|
Crap like this happens when fundamentalists pushing creationism join forces with wealthy energy giants who deny the existence of climate change. Stupid people are easier to control and manipulate.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/13/2013|
[quote]something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular"
That would be Intelligent Design.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/13/2013|
[quote]That is not even close to what a hypothesis really is. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon which needs to be tested.
She's a witch! Burn her!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/13/2013|
The only logical explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 in the precise manner of controlled demolition is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/13/2013|
NIST invented a "new phenomenon of thermal expansion" to describe how all the vertical supports on WTC 7 could fail simultaneously without being made to do so with the use of explosives.
You will never see this "new phenomenon" replicated anywhere ever again because it is "government science" that "government scientists" pulled out of their collective asses.
Anyone who believes the official explanation for the events of 9/11 believes more in faith than in facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/13/2013|
R10 Go start your own fucking thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/13/2013|
R11 being a 9/11 Truth Denier is like being a Global Warming Denier. The facts are there for anyone with a working brain to see. All the propaganda in the world cannot undo the laws of physics.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/13/2013|
They're trying to pull a Slick Willie, but lack the finesse to pull it off.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/13/2013|
R12 Again start your own thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/13/2013|
Why do Republicans go off on these idiotic tangents?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/13/2013|
I want to change it too to scientific fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/13/2013|
So in reading those three definitions, science is reduced to a mere 'unpopular opinion' where faith-based philosophy (which would not be based on facts, thus the faith part) is elevated above science. In fact, there is no definition there among the three that lends ANY weight to scientific explanations or theories. Science thus ceases to be science and seems to be redefined as some sort of fantasy, while faith based fantasy becomes a legitimate explanation with more weight than science.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/13/2013|
He looks like a penis buff, too. If you google hum he was an ex-Marine so seems pretty likely!
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/13/2013|